Buy xanax online. Xanax. Xanax effect. Side effects of xanax. Generic xanax….

Hmm… He sounded pretty angry when he said it, but I’ll take your word for it being satirical, it’s just like when president Bush said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He didn’t mean anything by it, as the evidence proves they never really existed.

Of course not. And it was not intended to be taken seriously. After all, who’s he talking to? He’s mocking a conversation with al Qaeda — or does anyone think he’s really in communication with them? (Question withdrawn) It’s purely rhetorical, and everyone with common sense knows this. O’Reilly was merely underscoring the foolheartedness (and consequences) of San Francisco’s pacifist stance.

Do liberals take offense when Sen. Mary Landrieu suggests she’s going to “punch” the president, or when AirAmerica’s Randi Rhoades jokes about assassinating the President? No. They laugh it off and dismiss the critics.

O’Reilly’s comments have been pounced upon purposefully by those who don’t care for him personally, not because of his throw-away remark about Coit Tower, but because of the other controversial issues which he brings to light on his program. He exposes the lunacies of the Left and he has a big microphone with which to bring it to the attention of the rest of America. Hence, lefties like Chris Daly are seizing upon this as an opportunity to bring O’Reilly grief — to intentionally blow the matter out of proportion in a transparent attempt to discredit him.

We are not “defending” him but rather clarifying his statements which seem to be both misunderstood and misrepresented, more of one than the other.

O’Reilly should not and hopefully will not retract his statements.

And we thank him for bringing increased national attention to our City of moonbattery.

“Coit Tower is a relatively small monument visited primarily by tourists. Not a 52-floor office building — which would be a more likely target for terrorists.”

Here you seem to be trying to justify that if an attack were to happen on Coit Tower, it’s relatively small size would make the attack itself unimportant. And to that I could say back that living in San Francisco, the World Trade Center is so far away in such a big city, what does it really matter if it were destroyed anyway?

I would be completely wrong, and you are as well, if that is the case you are trying to make.

And very much in the same vein, you cannot condone it’s destruction if it were filled with tourists and not residents. The fact it is a tourist destination, and a monument to firefighters only magnifies the the tragedy if it were destroyed. For those reasons, attacking Coit Tower is becomes much more of an attack on America, our citizens and our way of life than if a terrorist were to go for the biggest body count.

“would you have preferred O’Reilly pointing to Shorenstein’s ‘BofA’ building in downtown San Francisco? Of course, that would be far worse, as it’s filled with thousands of people working.”

You are trying to change the subject here by implying I would condone an attack on the Bank of America Building while not addressing the actual issue that O’Reilly condoned an attack on Coit Tower.

I am not in the position of having to choose which one to be attacked. I don’t happen to believe it is alright to blow up any building.

I would be justified to this challenge by asking you an inflammatory question in return that challenged your loyalty to this country like “why do you think it is alright to blow up Coit Tower?” but I would much rather believe we both find either option unacceptable and want America safe.

O’Reilly said, “You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.” which is not acceptable and he should retract the statement so we can got on to the more important matter of overturning these propositions in a court of law.

None of us want a terrorist attack and we are fighting amongst ourselves over a statement that should not have been made, while the liberals are probably reading themselves for the court challenge. You are not doing our cause justice by trying to defend O’Reilly when you should be joining with me in asking him to address the real issue of defending the Constitution.

San Francisco flaunts it’s responsibility, and is home to many who even sympathize with the enemy.

Let’s all stick to the facts. Bill O’Reilly said this:

“And if al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we’re not going to do anything about it. We’re going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.”

That is not the same as “inviting al Qaeda” to blow up anything. It’s stating the inevitable. America is under attack, and everyone agrees it’s not a matter of IF but when and where another 9/11 happens.

That’s why vigilance is required.

As for being a monument to firefighters, would you have preferred O’Reilly pointing to Shorenstein’s “BofA” building in downtown San Francisco? Of course, that would be far worse, as it’s filled with thousands of people working.

For those who are unfamiliar, Coit Tower is a relatively small monument visited primarily by tourists. Not a 52-floor office building — which would be a more likely target for terrorists.

The greatest irony of this entire discussion, one which O’Reilly might even agree with: as long as the San Francisco Bay Area continues producing moonbat protests and the likes of Cindy Sheehan, anti-Americans and anarchists against our government, it’ll be the last place for al Qaeda to target. Just as long as we keep aiding and comforting the enemy.

That’s not a policy; that’s a prescription for doom.

“For the reading impaired, Bill O’Reilly is NOT (in no way) suggesting or recommending that anyone ‘blow up’ Coit Tower.”

That’s exactly what he’s suggesting, inviting al Qaeda to destroy a moment to firefighters no less!

What Bill O’Reilly is really suggesting though is that people take violent action against those they disagree with, advocating for the destruction of all citizens of San Francisco, even those like me who voted against both propositions.

I don’t like a lot of what goes on here in San Francisco. sometimes it’s amazing anything happens with all these bleeding heart liberals and wanna-be socialists, but it hit me the other day that I have to side more with them that Bill O’Reilly.

We live in a democratic republic with a right to vote and sometimes that means letting people make stupid decisions like they did on propositions H and I (and prop F as well).

I don’t like how it went either, and unlike O’Reilly, I live here and have a right to be more upset than he does, but I have to accept the vote and wait for the courts to overturn it.

Thankfully there is a court system to make sure when people vote for something unconstitutional it will be overturned. Maybe because I live here and a lot more issues that should get settled through the court, but catch phrases like “activist judges” really tick me off because they are protecting the Constitution from these kind of liberal propositions from the voters whims.

Bill OÂ’Reilly is absolutely correct. San Francisco should not expect our military to come to their aid in any crisis. The city has effectively told our military to take a hike so we as a country should do the same. Let them defend themselves if that …

Cal over at California Conservative takes on those who are harshly condemning recent remarks Bill O’Reilly made after the election in San Francisco, an election which saw a majority of voters there choose to vote against military recruiting of y…

Sweet Spirits of Ammonia provides our funny.

Cranky Neocon provides another.

First of all, something not funny. Project Valour IT did it! Argghhh has the results.
Wizbang has the carnival of trackbacks.
Cao’s got a funny that isn’t…

You shouldn’t. It’s because you made it up. Nothing like a little slander to get back at someone whose argument you can’t legitimately oppose, huh?

Try one of these specials with your brunch:

Sigmund, Carl and Alfred look at the City Alight Of Light
Outside the Beltway looks at trouble in France
Blogs for Bush looks at the truth about White Phosphorous
Confederate Yankee has more on White P…

California Conservative » Why We Love Bill O’ReillyOTE: For the reading impaired, Bill O’Reilly is NOT (in no way) suggesting…

I don’t find that at all surprising.

Instead, O’Reilly’s remarks are in reference to San Francisco’s recent election which passed two left-wing propositions: 1. Banning legal ownership of handguns (criminals will still possess them the ‘old fashioned’ way), and 2. banning military recruiters from public schools (which receive federal funding)

Umm… I didn’t hear that. It’s interesting how libs hear things that aren’t there.

The military has been an important institution since the foundation of this country. All Bill O’Reilly was saying is that those who want to hinder the capability of that institution to do its job need not benefit from its work. It’s only fair…

This is why Bill O’Reilly will never be president. He’s an idiot. Of course San Francisco is full of a bunch of anti-American leftoids. But, the answer isn’t to accede to their wishes and let them secede from the country. (I know that won’t happen …